Proposal 2: CAP Professional Development and Rank/Grade

[Pylon]

I think the Flight Officer for everyone is a bad idea. Raise the bar, don't lower it. Make the PD steps worth the achievement. Don't throw out what we have, improve it. Besides, no one is going to buy off on converting all seniors to FO grades anyway. National would have fits, and I guarantee that the higher ups with their colonel grades won't go for it.

I don't personally see why CAP members need to be officers.  The flight officer idea is workable because it's finally our own rank system.  It doesn't draw parellels to anybody elses system, it doesn't use anybody else's insignia and so people don't make assumptions based on a particular symbol they see on your uniform. 

We've long established that CAP is way different than the Air Force and other services.  What would be a better opportunity to create a perfect system for our membership, that fits like a glove, eliminates stereotypes, and functions the way we function than using unique-to-CAP ranks/grades?

[Hawk200]

I think the Flight Officer for everyone is a bad idea. Raise the bar, don't lower it. Make the PD steps worth the achievement. Don't throw out what we have, improve it. Besides, no one is going to buy off on converting all seniors to FO grades anyway. National would have fits, and I guarantee that the higher ups with their colonel grades won't go for it.

I don't personally see why CAP members need to be officers.  The flight officer idea is workable because it's finally our own rank system.  It doesn't draw parellels to anybody elses system, it doesn't use anybody else's insignia and so people don't make assumptions based on a particular symbol they see on your uniform. 

We've long established that CAP is way different than the Air Force and other services.  What would be a better opportunity to create a perfect system for our membership, that fits like a glove, eliminates stereotypes, and functions the way we function than using unique-to-CAP ranks/grades?

We're not commisioned or anything, so I don't see why the resistance to it. And it would be easy to get confused with everyone being an FO. Plus, there are numerous logistics problems to making such a changeover. Instead of improving the existing system, you want to do something infinitely more difficult by scrapping it, and building something new. And it will require new policies, procedures, and programs. Besides, do you honestly believe that this would fly at National? Do you think they want to take the time to do that? You're not going to be able to hand them a whole new program, and have them adopt it without them taking time to look at it. Smaller steps are far easier than big ones.

What stereotypes are there? And what functions are there that would actually be served better by having a CAP unique rank structure? How does it improve anything? You can't say that it would give anyone anymore authority by virtue of having a higher grade as an FO, than as an officer. We still have the same problem.

Since we are a volunteer organization, there are problems with the concept of chain of command. So we should train people to lead. Leadership is a different concept than command. We have to apply a different concept to make the team function.

As for insignia, that seems like a copout. People don't want to have anything expected of them, so we create a system with no expectations. Not exactly a striving to be better, is it?

[ddelaney103]

I'm a big fan of the FO plan and have been for years.

My modification would be to make "commissioned grades" (below the NB level) dependent on your PD level as well as the position.

There would be 5 PD levels tied to FO grades.  Your PD level would also be the maximum O rating you could hold.  Your commissioned grade worn would be the lower of either your PD level or the rating of the command or staff position.

Exp 1: An FO-5 became sdqn DCS (a 1st Lt position).  He would wear silver bars as long as he held the position, even though he could be a Lt Col if he held an O-5 position.

Exp 2: An FO-2 becomes Gp Commander (a Maj position). He would also wear silver bars (1st Lt) until he increased his PD/FO level.

This way you avoid the current pitfalls of the system (grade inversion and grade doesn't mean what it does in the Real Military (TM)) and avoid the possibility of the "good 'ol boy network" making their friends Colonels w/o any training or experience to back it up.

This also give the commander a carrot/stick to use with their staff.  The tougher jobs would have more bling so you would have to do the job to keep the bling.

I'm a good example of this problem.  Due to the war, I haven't been very active in CAP, though I have kept my dues current.  If I decide to go back and be the supply guy for Podunk Comp Sqdn I'll be a Major.  If I go back and become the Wing CS, I'll be a Major.  I keep the costume jewelery either way.  Lord knows that doesn't happen in the real military.

[Major Carrales]

I'm a good example of this problem.  Due to the war, I haven't been very active in CAP, though I have kept my dues current.

If I may comment on this for a bit, I high recommend that CAP Officers that are pulled away from regular attendance retain their membership...even if as a patron status at reduced dues.  We have had several long time people, some that have and other that have not kept membership current.  Those that have kept their currency return to full activity in one forth the time.  Its just matter of updated GES and getting back Flight/Ground quals.  For the others, Level I as to be redone and the time is considerable even with documentation.

Now back to your regular discussion...

[ddelaney103]

We're not commisioned or anything, so I don't see why the resistance to it. And it would be easy to get confused with everyone being an FO. Plus, there are numerous logistics problems to making such a changeover. Instead of improving the existing system, you want to do something infinitely more difficult by scrapping it, and building something new. And it will require new policies, procedures, and programs. Besides, do you honestly believe that this would fly at National? Do you think they want to take the time to do that? You're not going to be able to hand them a whole new program, and have them adopt it without them taking time to look at it. Smaller steps are far easier than big ones.

What stereotypes are there? And what functions are there that would actually be served better by having a CAP unique rank structure? How does it improve anything? You can't say that it would give anyone anymore authority by virtue of having a higher grade as an FO, than as an officer. We still have the same problem.

Since we are a volunteer organization, there are problems with the concept of chain of command. So we should train people to lead. Leadership is a different concept than command. We have to apply a different concept to make the team function.

As for insignia, that seems like a copout. People don't want to have anything expected of them, so we create a system with no expectations. Not exactly a striving to be better, is it?

The problems with the current system are many:  grade means nothing, Lt Col's answer to 2nd Lt's, you can have grade without doing work appropriate to the grade.  All of these are the exact opposite of what the very same set of bars, leaves, eagles and stars mean to the military. 

How exactly do we get their respect if treat their symbols of office so cavalierly?  Military rank is based on a system of responsibility, authority and qualifications - our system is based on boxtops.

[Ricochet13]

The problems with the current system are many:  grade means nothing, Lt Col's answer to 2nd Lt's, you can have grade without doing work appropriate to the grade.  All of these are the exact opposite of what the very same set of bars, leaves, eagles and stars mean to the military. 

How exactly do we get their respect if treat their symbols of office so cavalierly?  Military rank is based on a system of responsibility, authority and qualifications - our system is based on boxtops.

An observation based on the "rank - position" situation.  Can it be said that it creates a situation in which the "minimum becomes the maximum"?  That is, do LTs and Captains stop their progression through professional development when they achieve a position in which they are comfortable? 

As I look around I see a number of members with those ranks who are content doing what they do with no sense of urgency or need to progress.  On the other hand I also see those few who have achieved ranks of MAJ and LT COL content to sit back and let others work.  (Note:  I said some . . . not all)

If courses such as SLS, CLC, RSC, UCC, etc have important information and lessons to be learned, should attendance and participation not be more strongly encouraged in order to enhance leadership and other related skills?  That is already done with UCC and the requirement to attend within 1 year of assuming command.

Should we change the system so rank does become important and is tied to increasing responsibility.  As a senior officer in rank, I view it much as I did when I was assigned to HHC.  The unit may have been commanded by a 1LT or CPT, but that was for administrative (and of course pay) purposes.  I certainly was not "ordered around" by someone of lesser rank. 

Quite honestly I have a problem following "orders" from another member who has not completed the same professional development as I have.  Having worked hard to achieve those recognitions I "expect" someone who has been given a position of "authority" over me to have worked as hard.  I see older Captains who have occupied a position of influence/importance, and want to do nothing more.  How much more could they contribute.

Again, it is my observation that the "minimum is the maximum" has become the norm within a significant part of the organization. 

[ColonelJack]

The problems with the current system are many:  grade means nothing, Lt Col's answer to 2nd Lt's, you can have grade without doing work appropriate to the grade.  All of these are the exact opposite of what the very same set of bars, leaves, eagles and stars mean to the military.

And this is no different than the way things were in 1941.  Grade was never intended to mean what it does in the military!  It has evolved over time to represent one thing, primarily -- how far one has progressed in one's personal professional development.  You know all second lieutenants have finished Level I.  All first lieutenants have earned at least a tech rating in a specialty.  All captains have completed Level II.  All majors have completed Level III.  All lieutenant colonels have completed Level IV.  That's all it's supposed to mean.  (From the no-prior-service perspective, of course -- for those who come in with prior commissioned service, it's different, and rightfully so.)  In the scheme of CAP, whether the CC is a 1st Lt or a Lt Col, he/she is still the CC.  Outside of duty, the rank is recognized.  On duty, the position reigns.  This is the way CAP was set up.  What's up with this urgent need on the part of some to monkey around with that?
 

How exactly do we get their respect if treat their symbols of office so cavalierly?  Military rank is based on a system of responsibility, authority and qualifications - our system is based on boxtops.

An interesting way to put it.  I hardly think sixteen years' service to CAP and completion of Level V (and SOS and ACSC) is equivalent to sending in boxtops, and I take some umbridge at your comment, sir.  I worked [darn]ed hard and earned my silver leaves, as did all others who wear them.  (At least I hope they did.)  Are my leaves the same as an AF light colonel's?  No, and I don't think that they should be.  His/her leaves mean something entirely different, even though they have the same title.  And that's the way it should be.

What's this need for the RealMilitary™ to "respect" us based on our symbols of office?  We will earn their respect by doing our jobs to the best of our ability and being their auxiliary when they need us to be such.   We aren't the military.  We are an auxiliary of the military -- a civilian auxiliary that is authorized to have a paramilitary structure and military-style uniforms.

Maybe the AF really does consider us a part of their overall picture; I don't know.  But I do know that for over 60 years, rank has never been meant as anything other than recognition of personal professional development.  And I just don't understand this need on the part of many to change that.

Again -- we are not the military. 

We shouldn't think of ourselves as such.

Jack

[Hawk200]

Wish I could have put it that well, ColonelJack.

[ZigZag911]

OK, here goes:

1) Time in grade:
        1 year as SM for 2 Lt
        2 yrs   as 2Lt for 1 Lt
        2 yrs   as 1 Lt for Capt
        4 yrs   as Capt for Maj
        6 yrs   as Maj  for Lt Col

2) Time in CAP for command/staff jobs:
        2 yrs before eligible for Sqdn CC/DC or group staff
        4 yrs before eligible for wing staff
        5 yrs before eligible for group CC/CV or region staff
        7 yrs before eligible for wing CC,CV,CS, with at least two years
                 as lower echelon commander or deputy
      10 yrs before eligible for region CC, CV, CS, with at least three
                 years as wing CC or CV
      10 yrs before eligible for national staff, with at least 3 yrs wing
                 or region staff experience
      15 yrs before eligible for election as Nat'l CC or CV, or appointment
                 as Nat'l CS, with at least 3 yrs as region or wing CC

No waivers, loopholes, or exceptions!

3) Professional & Mission related skills appointments:
      a) doctors (dentists, etc), lawyers, clergy keep as is (capt)....eliminate bump to
                major after 1 year
      b) nurses & physicians assistants get 1 Lt
      c) ATP/CFII/CFI still get Capt
         Commercial  gets 1 Lt
      d) A & P mechanics get Capt, A or P gets 1 Lt

4) Eliminate accelerated promotions for: instrument or private pilots; radio comm techs; educators (and I'm a teacher!); finance experts; health professionals other than those listed above; moral leadership officers

5) Squadron or group commanders retain their current grade on appointment; after 1 yr successful service, sqdn cc gets captain, group cc gets major

6) Former cadets' structure (officer or FO) stays as it is now.

7) Retired/former military get their military grade on completion of Level 2 (not just 1)

Accelerated or special promotees must "catch up" on PD before eligible for any further promotion, including a command appointment or election that would result in higher grade.
   
       

[ColonelJack]

An observation based on the "rank - position" situation.  Can it be said that it creates a situation in which the "minimum becomes the maximum"?  That is, do LTs and Captains stop their progression through professional development when they achieve a position in which they are comfortable?

As long as CAP doesn't utilize an "up-or-out" system of promotion (which would be organizational suicide, given the fact that there are only 52 wings and 8 regions -- thus a total of only 60 active command colonel slots, and darned few others in the organization -- and only two general officer slots), people will rise to the highest level they wish.  Some folks are perfectly content to remain captains or majors (or even lieutenants) their entire career in CAP.  As long as they're doing their job, what difference does it make?  Rank is not indicative of position, nor is it supposed to be.  Rank (or grade) is only indicative of personal professional development.  That's the way it started and that's the way it continues.  Only at the O-6, O-7, and O-8 grades does rank have any actual command meaning.
 

As I look around I see a number of members with those ranks who are content doing what they do with no sense of urgency or need to progress.  On the other hand I also see those few who have achieved ranks of MAJ and LT COL content to sit back and let others work.  (Note:  I said some . . . not all)

An argument could be raised for those majors and light colonels you mention that they've "earned it."  I wouldn't say it, however, because until the day I sent in my CAPF 2a to retire, I was an active member -- squadron commander and then group staff officer.  I earned my promotions as soon as I could, not because I wanted the bling, but because of the challenge of the SM program.  Getting that Gill Robb Wilson meant much more to me than being able to make light colonel eleven years after I joined.

If courses such as SLS, CLC, RSC, UCC, etc have important information and lessons to be learned, should attendance and participation not be more strongly encouraged in order to enhance leadership and other related skills?  That is already done with UCC and the requirement to attend within 1 year of assuming command.

I would strongly support strong encouragement at all these development courses, and those offered by the Air Force as well.  All living is learning -- those who are not learning are dead.  But remember -- "mandatory" and "requirement" have little meaning in a volunteer organization in which one gets no financial reward (and has to pay to join!) and thus can vote with his/her feet at any time.  The UCC requirement is probably the easiest to enforce -- don't take the course, you don't command.  Period.  Other than that, people rise to the level of their comfort.

Should we change the system so rank does become important and is tied to increasing responsibility.

Not just, "No," but, "Hell no!"  Why would we want to change the way the entire grade system was envisioned?  From flight officer to lieutenant colonel, it's the way an officer shows his/her professional development.  "Command" and "responsibility" in the way you mean it come about when one assumes a corporate office such as Wing Commander, which has a grade tied to that position.  There's no real reason to change the rest of it -- unless change for the sake of change is the goal.

As a senior officer in rank, I view it much as I did when I was assigned to HHC.  The unit may have been commanded by a 1LT or CPT, but that was for administrative (and of course pay) purposes.  I certainly was not "ordered around" by someone of lesser rank.

No, you weren't "ordered" around.  I will bet, however, that you recognized the fact that the person listed as commander also had the responsibility for the unit, and if the unit didn't achieve its goals and objectives, his/her backside was on the line -- not yours -- and thus did as requested.  If that person had paid attention in Leadership 101, they knew how to lead the unit and not just "order" people to do things.  That 1LT or CPT may have been in the slot for what you call "administrative" purposes, but it was his/her ass if the unit didn't perform.  You knew that. 

Quite honestly I have a problem following "orders" from another member who has not completed the same professional development as I have.  Having worked hard to achieve those recognitions I "expect" someone who has been given a position of "authority" over me to have worked as hard.  I see older Captains who have occupied a position of influence/importance, and want to do nothing more.  How much more could they contribute.

Again, it is my observation that the "minimum is the maximum" has become the norm within a significant part of the organization. 

In the ideal world, my friend, it would be as you say.  But as I mentioned above, until and unless CAP adopts the "up-or-out" philosophy, such as you cite is going to continue to happen.  I have chafed under commanders who didn't know much more than how to tie their shoes, but rather than cook in my own stew, I made it a point to get them at least in the direction of the professional development they needed.  Some appreciated it -- some didn't.  (One even tried to 2b me because of it.  Long story short -- I stayed in.  He was invited to leave.) 

If "minimum as maximum" is becoming the norm as you see it, work hard to make it different (as I can tell you already do).  Those who fight this should lead by example, and if nothing else, you can shame these stagnant so-and-sos into doing better.

Good on you!  Semper Vi!

Jack

[lordmonar]

LordM, your proposal seems like a modification of Coast guard Auxiliary method, is that what you were using as a framework? I think it would be tough to sell to the troops....not even sure I care for it myself! Changing from field grade to CWO4 or 5 just doesn't do it for me, sorry.

That would be an incentive to step up and take a staff/command job.

Rank will not mean anything until we make it mean something.

Adding more requirements/TIG/TIS/Education is not going to help the basic fact that a CAP Lt Col has the same responsibilities and obligations as a brand new SMWOG.

We can't go the USAF method of moving people around to different units to match rank with billet.  So the only thing to do is to tie the rank to specific jobs.

If that is a hard sell....well so be it.  We either just ignore the problem and press on or we attempt to do something about it.

Bottom line is....how much of a problem do you thing this "rank does not mean anything" problem really is?

Zig....you indicate that you would rather keep your rank even if the don't mean anything....which is fine by me.....I too would like to keep my Capt Bars but the fix to the "problem" is easy.

[lordmonar]

I think the Flight Officer for everyone is a bad idea. Raise the bar, don't lower it. Make the PD steps worth the achievement. Don't throw out what we have, improve it. Besides, no one is going to buy off on converting all seniors to FO grades anyway. National would have fits, and I guarantee that the higher ups with their colonel grades won't go for it.

Higher staff should definitely be held by higher grades, and there should be training to take those command positions. We have SLS, and CLC, but they're checkmark courses right now. You attend, you get a certificate, even if you slept in the course. No accomplishment, other than showing up.

For higher level courses, train people to handle higher command positions. Make them worth attending. How many people here have attended any kind of military school or college course where there wasn't a test? Did you get handed a certificate for just showing up? Learn from the lessons that the military has, more leadership training as you gain rank. There isn't any of that now.

You have to take a test for the CAP officer course, why should everything else be different?

I don't see how that fixes the problem.  So what that you worked you butt off to get your level 5...doing PhD level work, working long hours at your staff job.  At the end of the day......you "rank" means nothing only your position.  A 1st Lt Squadron Commander still out ranks a Maj General ex National Commander.

Making it harder to get the rank does not mean it "means" anything.  Giving the rank responsibilities and authorities does.  Once you do that...then you can talk about making it harder to earn those responsibilities and authorities.

[ColonelJack]

That would be an incentive to step up and take a staff/command job.

There are only so many of those staff/command jobs available, you know.  So if a job isn't available, a member has no rank (or "flight officer" grade)?

Rank will not mean anything until we make it mean something.

It does mean something.  It means exactly what it is supposed to mean in CAP -- personal professional development. 

Unless, of course, your dream is to have CAP rank mean the same thing as it does in the RealMilitary™.  In which case, I have to ask you why you want that.  As I said in an earlier post ... we are not the military and we should not think of ourselves as such.  People who think CAP should be just like the military meet my definition of a "wannabe."  (No offense intended.)

Adding more requirements/TIG/TIS/Education is not going to help the basic fact that a CAP Lt Col has the same responsibilities and obligations as a brand new SMWOG.

Does it not matter that your hypothetical CAP light colonel has more training, more experience, and more familiarity with CAP than the brand new SMWOG?  He is able to do more for CAP in many different ways -- including teaching the new SMWOG about duties and responsibilities. 

And to whom, exactly, are his responsibilities and obligations?  To himself?  His unit?  His wing?  His region?  His CAP? 

We can't go the USAF method of moving people around to different units to match rank with billet.  So the only thing to do is to tie the rank to specific jobs.

If that is a hard sell....well so be it.  We either just ignore the problem and press on or we attempt to do something about it.

WHY???  What is it you want here?

Bottom line is....how much of a problem do you thing this "rank does not mean anything" problem really is?

I know you're not asking me this, but I will answer you anyway.  How much of a problem is this?

None whatsoever within CAP.  It's the way rank has been used since 1941.  It's never been a problem before now.  And I've seen no reason to believe it's a problem now.

Outside of CAP ... if you're looking for your rank to be respected by the RealMilitary™, you're barking up the wrong idea.  Since we don't earn our rank the same way, it won't mean the same thing -- no matter how we contrive to make it similar.

Zig....you indicate that you would rather keep your rank even if the don't mean anything....which is fine by me.....I too would like to keep my Capt Bars but the fix to the "problem" is easy.

The fix is easy because (in my opinion) the problem doesn't exist.  The rank we hold does have meaning within our organization.  Why does it have to have meaning elsewhere? 

The fact that some people don't like the meaning it holds doesn't lead to revising or discarding it.  It should lead to more of an acceptance.  Nod, smile, salute, and carry on.  That's what I do.

Jack

[ColonelJack]

I don't see how that fixes the problem.  So what that you worked you butt off to get your level 5...doing PhD level work, working long hours at your staff job.  At the end of the day......you "rank" means nothing only your position.  A 1st Lt Squadron Commander still out ranks a Maj General ex National Commander.

I'm not sure how it works where you are ... but in my 16 years experience, I've found that on duty or off, a person who understands what rank is supposed to be in CAP acts properly around those of higher and lesser rank than themselves.  When I was a major and a squadron CC, my unit was visited by a former wing commander.  He held absolutely no authority over me in duty positions -- but he was a bird colonel, and he was "Sir," when I spoke to him.  I saluted him -- he didn't salute me.  It's all in how you present yourself to the other grades that determines what that grade -- and your own -- means to you.

I still think you want our rank to be more in line with the RealMilitary™ ... and that just ain't gonna happen, because we're not the military.

Making it harder to get the rank does not mean it "means" anything.  Giving the rank responsibilities and authorities does.  Once you do that...then you can talk about making it harder to earn those responsibilities and authorities.

Sigh.  None so blind as those who will not see, and all that other sort of rot.

Rank in CAP means exactly what it was intended to mean -- personal professional development until one gets to the level of corporate officer.  Then rank is tied to position by regulation.  Everyone can't become a wing/region CC.  Everyone can't earn the rank of colonel.  But unless CAP adopts the AF's "up-or-out" this is the way it should be.

If you know what rank stands for ... and you act accordingly ... then it means what you want it to.  We're never going to be able to give legal orders to the real guys.  That's one of the major trappings of officer rank, and we just ain't gonna get that.  Because ... say it with me, now ... "we are not the military."

I apologize if I'm coming off snide or arrogant (or worse) here.  It's just that I have no idea why this is an issue ... no idea at all.

Jack

[lordmonar]

I sorry Col Jack.

I thought we were addressing the "problem" that CAP rank means nothing.

I personally don't see anything wrong with the current system.  I was just chucking out a possible solution to the perceived problem and defending that position.

I don't want to change our system....but if we are going to change it....we should do it intelligently.

[RogueLeader]

The problems with the current system are many:  grade means nothing, Lt Col's answer to 2nd Lt's, you can have grade without doing work appropriate to the grade.  All of these are the exact opposite of what the very same set of bars, leaves, eagles and stars mean to the military.

And this is no different than the way things were in 1941.  Grade was never intended to mean what it does in the military!  It has evolved over time to represent one thing, primarily -- how far one has progressed in one's personal professional development.  You know all second lieutenants have finished Level I.  All first lieutenants have earned at least a tech rating in a specialty.  All captains have completed Level II.  All majors have completed Level III.  All lieutenant colonels have completed Level IV.  That's all it's supposed to mean.  (From the no-prior-service perspective, of course -- for those who come in with prior commissioned service, it's different, and rightfully so.)  In the scheme of CAP, whether the CC is a 1st Lt or a Lt Col, he/she is still the CC.  Outside of duty, the rank is recognized.  On duty, the position reigns.  This is the way CAP was set up.  What's up with this urgent need on the part of some to monkey around with that?
 

How exactly do we get their respect if treat their symbols of office so cavalierly?  Military rank is based on a system of responsibility, authority and qualifications - our system is based on boxtops.

An interesting way to put it.  I hardly think sixteen years' service to CAP and completion of Level V (and SOS and ACSC) is equivalent to sending in boxtops, and I take some umbridge at your comment, sir.  I worked [darn]ed hard and earned my silver leaves, as did all others who wear them.  (At least I hope they did.)  Are my leaves the same as an AF light colonel's?  No, and I don't think that they should be.  His/her leaves mean something entirely different, even though they have the same title.  And that's the way it should be.

What's this need for the RealMilitary™ to "respect" us based on our symbols of office?  We will earn their respect by doing our jobs to the best of our ability and being their auxiliary when they need us to be such.   We aren't the military.  We are an auxiliary of the military -- a civilian auxiliary that is authorized to have a paramilitary structure and military-style uniforms.

Maybe the AF really does consider us a part of their overall picture; I don't know.  But I do know that for over 60 years, rank has never been meant as anything other than recognition of personal professional development.  And I just don't understand this need on the part of many to change that.

Again -- we are not the military. 

We shouldn't think of ourselves as such.

Jack

AMEN!!!

[ColonelJack]

I sorry Col Jack.

No apology necessary, Captain.  I enjoy spirited debates.  (You couldn't tell, could you?)  My journalism training shows through.

I thought we were addressing the "problem" that CAP rank means nothing.

Here's where the discussion loses me.  I don't see a problem at all.  CAP rank does have meaning -- within CAP.  It's not supposed to have meaning outside CAP.  And the meaning it has within CAP is not the same as the meaning military rank has within the RealMilitary™, and that's as it should be.

Let me give you an exercise in understanding whence I come:  take your average Army captain, or Navy commander.  Put them in, say, Wal-mart.  In or out of uniform, doesn't matter.  Exactly how much "authority" over others in the store does that officer have?  None.  Zip.  Nada.  He's a guy in a nice-looking suit (if in uniform), and if he's not acting like a total snot, he'll probably be thanked for his service -- but that's about it.

Now, put a CAP captain or light colonel in Wal-mart.  In uniform.  Those who don't know what CAP is, will probably thank him for his service.  (To which he should reply, "Thank you for your kind words," without trying to explain the difference between CAP and the RealMilitary™.  That would be silly.)  Out of uniform, he's just another average Joe.

See, my point here is that rank (or grade -- we use the terms interchangeably and they really shouldn't be) only has meaning within the organization that confers it.  Our CAP rank has its meaning in our organization.  Voilá!

I personally don't see anything wrong with the current system.  I was just chucking out a possible solution to the perceived problem and defending that position.

And doing a good job, I might add.  My only objection is to the perception of a problem -- unless we're trying to be "wannabes" and act like something we ain't, there isn't a problem.  (In my view.  Your mileage may vary.)

I don't want to change our system....but if we are going to change it....we should do it intelligently.

Correct, Captain.  Change should be done intelligently.  But only if there is a legitimate reason for such change.  Here, there just isn't one, as far as I can see.

All the best ...

Jack

[Major Carrales]

Here's where the discussion loses me.  I don't see a problem at all.  CAP rank does have meaning -- within CAP.  It's not supposed to have meaning outside CAP.  And the meaning it has within CAP is not the same as the meaning military rank has within the RealMilitary™, and that's as it should be.

Well said, Colonel.

The Significance of CAP RANK is to show the professional development level of a CAP OFFICER.   Even if it is from a Pilot's certificate, Teaching Certificate or prior cadet preformance.  The rank from 2d Lt to Lt Col reflects your training (in and out of CAP depending on the situation),  Col to Major General shows your current/former position and experience in CAP.  That is likely to mean something to subordiates and peers.  I see a CAP Lt Col and I can expect to see someone who as "been there and done that" in CAP...or in the Armed Forces.  I can look at a captain and tell by the ribbons and badges if that person is a "up the chain" Captain of someone "by appointment." 

I know wearing ribbons is cultrually un-USAF...but it would serve a purpose in CAP...

A Captain or Major with no Leadership Ribbon or Loening is likely a pilot or other professional that one should respect for that purpose.  A person of Captain or Major rank with a membership ribbon under US miltiary Awards is a prior service person who should be respected for that reason.  A Captain or Major with those ribbons should be respected for that as well.  It's all good!

I would say the authority and meaning of these titles, ranks and grades is intended to function within its own sphere.  I could be wrong.

Military rank, it could be said, really only has authority under the Armed Forces.  I don't think a USAF Major could simply walk into a CAP meeting and attempt to exercise control (I am assuming since I have never seen it happen) or a USAF General likely could not walk into a police station in a small town and begin giving orders.

[ColonelJack]

Military rank, it could be said, really only has authority under the Armed Forces.  I don't think a USAF Major could simply walk into a CAP meeting and attempt to exercise control (I am assuming since I have never seen it happen)

Theoretically, I suppose he could, but if he is a smart person -- and wants to give the correct impression of the AF, especially to cadets -- he won't.  The CAP meeting is not his territory, and if he's worth the paper his commission was printed on, he'll realize that and not come in trying to give orders to people not in his chain o' command.

Jack

[RiverAux]

Theoretically, I suppose he could,

I hope you meant that in theory he could try to assert authority, not that he actually had any authority over CAP. 

I could agree he could try, but no one in CAP is obligated to listen to him.